# data[].attributes.headline
How does media affect audiences and true crime cases? 

# data[].attributes.subject
How does media affect audiences and true crime cases? 

# data[].attributes.headline
How does media coverage impact the investigation and prosecution of true crime cases?

# data[].attributes.subject
How does media coverage impact the investigation and prosecution of true crime cases?

# data[].attributes.headline
Does a large media presence on a case affect investigators ability to conduct unbiased investigations?  

# data[].attributes.subject
Does a large media presence on a case affect investigators ability to conduct unbiased investigations?  

# data[].attributes.headline
Does media coverage affect jury decisions or the trial process? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Does media coverage affect jury decisions or the trial process? 

# data[].attributes.headline
How has the rise of social media influenced the way true crime is reported or discussed? 

# data[].attributes.subject
How has the rise of social media influenced the way true crime is reported or discussed? 

# data[].attributes.headline
Misinformation in the Media (Amanda Wallace

# data[].attributes.subject
Misinformation in the Media (Amanda Wallace

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: This article explains the important change in how people gather crime information now due to social media platforms such as Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, and TikTok. The author, Amanda Wallace discusses how these platforms include a lot of public participation, which can lead to misinformation turning ideas on crime trends and race-related crime data. The article describes how social media can make it seem like there are increasing crime rates when in reality the FBI shows data of decreasing rates. Posts without context can spike feelings of fear in people by making distant crimes seem local. A study conducted by Stanford University conducted that Facebook misrepresent Black suspects which results in a misrepresentation of racial demographics in crime reporting.

Evaluation: This is a popular article because it is published on a mainstream media source and is written for a general audience. While it is very informative it lacks the research and citations that are required for a scholarly article.

Response: I found this article really helpful to learn about how the media affects crime opinions. It provides insightful information on social media’s role in misinformation and law enforcement. This article sparked my interest in how racial discrimination is perceived on social media and how law enforcement combats misinformation that can be found online. A question that I had while reading this article was, how can we limit the spread of misinformation on social media?

# data[].attributes.headline
The CSI Effect Article (Rasmussen College)

# data[].attributes.subject
The CSI Effect Article (Rasmussen College)

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: This article discusses the “CSI Effect” which is when media programs, influence’s juror’s beliefs in a courtroom. This article explains how shows and other forms of media can lead to unrealistic demands for evidence during court. For example, some jurors may expect fingerprints, or DNA evidence in a case, when sometimes this evidence is simply unnecessary or not accessible. The article also touches on the positive side of the CSI Effect, such as an increase in interest in criminal justice, and that jurors are becoming more knowledgeable on case information.

Evaluation: This is a popular source because it is intended for a general audience and is written in a simple and engaging manner. The article discusses trends and real-world issues and doesn’t go into any research or analysis’.

Response: This source is very informative on how the media changes public expectations in true crime cases, which directly relates to the topic of my project. I found it really interesting how the article was able to show the negative sides and positives of the CSI Effect, which really shows the duality of this phenomenon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We've all been there: sitting on the edge of our seat, popcorn in hand, completely caught up in the latest crime drama unfolding before us on our television screen.

A greedy son murders his parents to get his hands on their life insurance payout. Newly discovered DNA evidence is used to crack an unsolved mystery from decades ago. No matter how many times we see similar storylines unfold, we can't help but be enthralled.

Scroll through your local listings and you'll notice the breadth of crime shows on TV these days. This speaks volumes to the mass interest and curiosity of the criminal justice system amongst the general public.

Between the dramatized "true crime" shows and the straight up fictionalized programs, there's no shortage of crime and legal programming in our lives. This is causing many legal professionals to notice the lines blurring between real life circumstances and Hollywood's portrayal of it. It's called the CSI effect and it's changing modern day courtrooms.

What is the CSI effect?

The term was coined after the long-running television show, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. The CSI effect is prosecutors' belief that crime programs are skewing jurors' courtroom expectations, ultimately making it more difficult to win their cases and convict defendants.

Naysayers question the existence of the CSI effect, or they think it's just part of a bigger problem. Some believe technology in general is the real culprit. Yet the belief is persistent-CSI and other crime programs are seeping into our courtrooms and influencing jurors.

The concept doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch, considering CSI was once deemed the most watched show in the world and has entertained millions of viewers since it first aired in 2000. And studies suggest that regular CSI viewers hold higher expectations for courtroom evidence than non-viewers. Other studies have revealed CSI viewers are also likely to frequently watch other law-related TV shows.

The media is saturated with programming centering on crime and law. But what effect does this TV crime consumption have in our real-life courtrooms? Keep reading to learn about seven ways it's changing the game, for better and for worse.

Negative effects of the CSI effect

1. It's become more difficult to prosecute defendants

Today's jurors want more hard evidence. They want the smoking gun and the DNA proof-the unmistakable proof that points to the perpetrator. But any legal professional will tell you this doesn't always exist.

Some think this is why high-profile defendants like Casey Anthony and Robert Blake were acquitted in recent years. Circumstantial evidence and even eye-witness accounts don't cut it in the shadow of the high-tech, flashy world of CSI and other shows. 21 st century jurors are expecting sophisticated science to be included in every trial-even though it may not always reflect the reality of the case.

2. It's become harder to find jurors

In light of the CSI effect, some states now allow lawyers to dismiss potential jurors from the pool based on the TV programs they watch. Lawyers may flag and remove jurors that enjoy their weekly dose of CSI and other crime programs. This is starting to limit the pool of potential candidates to serve in criminal court cases.

3. It's straining already tight resources

To feed jurors' appetites for bulletproof forensic evidence, some investigators have started to run seemingly useless tests simply to garner more evidence to bolster their case and appease the jury members. These tests add more strain to already-tight budgets in death investigations across the US.

4. It's manipulating crime scenes

Criminals have access to the same television programming as the rest of us. Some believe the surplus in crime shows is changing their behavior as well. While these programs are not always entirely true, many of the proceedings are based upon facts.

Criminals are taking notes and becoming more skilled at covering their tracks. They know to wear gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints, and they know to use bleach to clean up incriminating evidence.

5. Defense lawyers are spending too much time educating juries

While all may seem well for the defendant in the age of the CSI effect, it's not exactly the case. Defense teams must meticulously present and explain DNA and other forensic evidence to juries-defining what is to be expected and what exists solely on the silver screen.

Juries also have difficulty understanding forensic evidence, like DNA, which is calculated in probabilities rather than certainties. As a result, defense teams often waste valuable time throughout the trial ensuring jurors' expectations and understandings are clear.

Positive effects of the CSI effect

6. Jurors are becoming more knowledgeable

While CSI-viewers tend to have higher expectations for scientific evidence in trials, they also show patterns of superior legal knowledge compared to their non-CSI-watching counterparts. One survey indicated that CSI viewers were more likely to expect evidence relevant to a specific crime than non-CSI viewers. They also knew what type of evidence would be irrelevant to specific crimes.

However, more knowledgeable jurors isn't always a good thing. Jurors may think they are more knowledgeable on forensic evidence than they truly are. They may be aware of forensic testing and its capabilities but not understand when it is appropriately used in a case.

7. Interest is increasing in the criminal justice field

If nothing else, crime shows are at least raising interest and awareness of the legal, medical and investigative professionals and what they do. Bringing the work of these often-overlooked criminal justice professionals to the public eye is introducing individuals to potential professional opportunities in the field.

What can be done?

It's highly unlikely that Americans' obsession with crime shows will diminish anytime soon. So what can be done to minimize the negative impact of the CSI effect? Should law enforcement agencies commit to overhauling resources and equip investigative teams with the highest possible forensic technology? Or does the problem lay within our crime laboratories-should more responsibility be placed on them to keep up with the demands and reduce analysis backlog?

Perhaps the issue is in the courtroom. Should judges address unrealistic juror expectations? Should legal teams rethink how they explain and present evidence to juries? No matter which changes take hold, the greater legal system needs to prioritize adjusting to the evolving expectations of jurors.

Curious about careers?

Next time you sit down to enjoy your favorite crime show, keep in mind that not everything you see-even the so-called "real cases"-reflect reality.

Want to learn more about the real-life professionals who work on a crime scene? Check out our infographic: Who's Who in a Crime Scene?
RELATED ARTICLES:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Ways the CSI Effect is Altering Our Courtrooms (For Better and For Worse)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We've all been there: sitting on the edge of our seat, popcorn in hand, completely caught up in the latest crime drama unfolding before us on our television screen. A greedy son murders his parents to get his hands on their life insurance payout.

# data[].attributes.headline
Serial Podcast Season 1, Episode 1: "The Alibi" 

# data[].attributes.subject
Serial Podcast Season 1, Episode 1: "The Alibi" 

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: This episode discusses the murder case of Hae Min Lee and the conviction of Adnan Syed. It explains the media’s role in creating an interest in the case. The episode examines inconsistencies in the evidence of this story and the emotional impact the media had on those involved in the case. The host, Sarah Koenig tells the story like it's a puzzle in order to make the listeners think about the reliability of the investigation and trial results. A quote from this episode that really stuck with me was, “The way evidence is presented in the court of public opinion often differs starkly from courtroom proceedings, and this difference has real-world implications.”

Evaluation: This source is a popular source, because it was intended for a general audience and is centered around investigative storytelling. Its purpose is to inform and engage audiences rather than providing a technical analysis.

Response: I found this episode to be really interesting and it was extremely relevant to my topic. The case discussed shows the power of the media to change public opinion and its influence on legal procedures, such as retrials or appeals. I think that the way the host told the story made it really easy for me to connect to the emotional and factual twists in the case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A potential alibi surfaces … and then disappears again, at the worst possible time for Adnan’s case.

# data[].attributes.headline
Knowledge at Wharton Article on Social Media 

# data[].attributes.subject
Knowledge at Wharton Article on Social Media 

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: Some of the effects of social media on different types of industries and human behaviors include misinformation, data privacy concerns, and can create addiction. This article from Knowledge at Wharton highlights how social media platforms have become fundamental to how billions of people access information and connect with each other. It also talks about regulation challenges, ethical concerns about consumer data use, and the psychological implications of social media like increased depression and loneliness.

Evaluation: This is a trade source because it is published by Knowledge at Wharton which is intended for professionals in business trends and industry insights. It is not peer reviewed but it includes specific data for a professional audience.

Response: This source is helpful because it explains how social media impacts behaviors and industries, which can be linked to how true crime is affected by social media platforms. The article discusses misinformation which is relevant to my topic on how social media influences true crime.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In little more than a decade, the impact of social media has gone from being an entertaining extra to a fully integrated part of nearly every aspect of daily life for many.

Recently in the realm of commerce, Facebook faced skepticism in its testimony to the Senate Banking Committee on Libra, its proposed cryptocurrency and alternative financial system. In politics, heartthrob Justin Bieber tweeted the President of the United States, imploring him to "let those kids out of cages." In law enforcement, the Philadelphia police department moved to terminate more than a dozen police officers after their racist comments on social media were revealed.

And in the ultimate meshing of the digital and physical worlds, Elon Musk raised the specter of essentially removing the space between social and media through the invention - at some future time - of a brain implant that connects human tissue to computer chips.

All this, in the span of about a week.

As quickly as social media has insinuated itself into politics, the workplace, home life, and elsewhere, it continues to evolve at lightning speed, making it tricky to predict which way it will morph next. It's hard to recall now, but SixDegrees.com, Friendster, and Makeoutclub.com were each once the next big thing, while one survivor has continued to grow in astonishing ways. In 2006, Facebook had 7.3 million registered users and reportedly turned down a $750 million buyout offer. In the first quarter of 2019, the company could claim 2.38 billion active users, with a market capitalization hovering around half a trillion dollars.

"In 2007 I argued that Facebook might not be around in 15 years. I'm clearly wrong, but it is interesting to see how things have changed," says Jonah Berger, Wharton marketing professor and author of Contagious: Why Things Catch On. The challenge going forward is not just having the best features, but staying relevant, he says. "Social media isn't a utility. It's not like power or water where all people care about is whether it works. Young people care about what using one platform or another says about them. It's not cool to use the same site as your parents and grandparents, so they're always looking for the hot new thing."

Just a dozen years ago, everyone was talking about a different set of social networking services, "and I don't think anyone quite expected Facebook to become so huge and so dominant," says Kevin Werbach, Wharton professor of legal studies and business ethics. "At that point, this was an interesting discussion about tech start-ups.

"Today, Facebook is one of the most valuable companies on earth and front and center in a whole range of public policy debates, so the scope of issues we're thinking about with social media are broader than then," Werbach adds.

Cambridge Analytica, the impact of social media on the last presidential election and other issues may have eroded public trust, Werbach said, but "social media has become really fundamental to the way that billions of people get information about the world and connect with each other, which raises the stakes enormously."
Just Say No
"Facebook is dangerous," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) at July's hearing of the Senate Banking Committee. "Facebook has said, 'just trust us.' And every time Americans trust you, they seem to get burned."

Social media has plenty of detractors, but by and large, do Americans agree with Brown's sentiment? In 2018, 42% of those surveyed in a Pew Research Center survey said they had taken a break from checking the platform for a period of several weeks or more, while 26% said they had deleted the Facebook app from their cellphone.

A year later, though, despite the reputational beating social media had taken, the 2019 iteration of the same Pew survey found social media use unchanged from 2018.

Facebook has its critics, says Wharton marketing professor Pinar Yildirim, and they are mainly concerned about two things: mishandling consumer data and poorly managing access to it by third-party providers; and the level of disinformation spreading on Facebook.

"Social media isn't a utility. It's not like power or water where all people care about is whether it works. Young people care about what using one platform or another says about them."-Jonah Berger

"The question is, are we at a point where the social media organizations and their activities should be regulated for the benefit of the consumer? I do not think more regulation will necessarily help, but certainly this is what is on the table," says Yildirim. "In the period leading to the [2020 U.S. presidential] elections, we will hear a range of discussions about regulation on the tech industry."

Some proposals relate to stricter regulation on collection and use of consumer data, Yildirim adds, noting that the European Union already moved to stricter regulations last year by adopting the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). "A number of companies in the U.S. and around the world adopted the GDPR protocol for all of their customers, not just for the residents of EU," she says. "We will likely hear more discussions on regulation of such data, and we will likely see stricter regulation of this data."

The other discussion bound to intensify is around the separation of Big Tech into smaller, easier to regulate units. "Most of us academics do not think that dividing organizations into smaller units is sufficient to improve their compliance with regulation. It also does not necessarily mean they will be less competitive," says Yildirim. "For instance, in the discussion of Facebook, it is not even clear yet how breaking up the company would work, given that it does not have very clear boundaries between different business units."

Even if such regulations never come to pass, the discussions "may nevertheless hurt Big Tech financially, given that most companies are publicly traded and it adds to the uncertainty," Yildirim notes.

One prominent commentator about the negative impact of social media is Jaron Lanier, whose fervent opposition makes itself apparent in the plainspoken title of his 2018 book Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now. He cites loss of free will, social media's erosion of the truth and destruction of empathy, its tendency to make people unhappy, and the way in which it is "making politics impossible." The title of the last chapter: "Social Media Hates Your Soul."

Lanier is no tech troglodyte. A polymath who bridges the digital and analog realms, he is a musician and writer, has worked as a scientist for Microsoft, and was co-founder of pioneering virtual reality company VPL Research. The nastiness that online existence brings out in users "turned out to be like crude oil for the social media companies and other behavior manipulation empires that quickly came to dominate the internet, because it fuelled negative behavioral feedback," he writes.

"Social media has become really fundamental to the way that billions of people get information about the world and connect with each other, which raises the stakes enormously."-Kevin Werbach

Worse, there is an addictive quality to social media, and that is a big issue, says Berger. "Social media is like a drug, but what makes it particularly addictive is that it is adaptive. It adjusts based on your preferences and behaviors," he says, "which makes it both more useful and engaging and interesting, and more addictive."

The effect of that drug on mental health is only beginning to be examined, but a recent University of Pennsylvania study makes the case that limiting use of social media can be a good thing. Researchers looked at a group of 143 Penn undergraduates, using baseline monitoring and randomly assigning each to either a group limiting Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat use to 10 minutes per platform per day, or to one told to use social media as usual for three weeks. The results, published in the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, showed significant reductions in loneliness and depression over three weeks in the group limiting use compared to the control group.

However, "both groups showed significant decreases in anxiety and fear of missing out over baseline, suggesting a benefit of increased self-monitoring," wrote the authors of " No More FOMO: Limiting Social Media Decreases Loneliness and Depression."
Monetizing a League (and a Reality) All Their Own
No one, though, is predicting that social media is a fad that will pass like its analog antecedent of the 1970s, citizens band radio. It will, however, evolve. The idea of social media as just a way to reconnect with high school friends seems quaint now. The impact of social media today is a big tent, including not only networks like Facebook, but also forums like Reddit and video-sharing platforms.

"The question is, are we at a point where the social media organizations and their activities should be regulated for the benefit of the consumer?"-Pinar Yildirim

Virtual worlds and gaming have become a major part of the sector, too. Wharton marketing professor Peter Fader says gamers are creating their own user-generated content through virtual worlds - and the revenue to go with it. He points to one group of gamers that use Grand Theft Auto as a kind of stage or departure point "to have their own virtual show." In NoPixel, the Grand Theft Auto roleplaying server, "not much really happens and millions are tuning in to watch them. Just watching, not even participating, and it's either live-streamed or recorded. And people are making donations to support this thing. The gamers are making hundreds of thousands of dollars.

"Now imagine having a 30-person reality show all filmed live and you can take the perspective of one person and then watch it again from another person's perspective," he continues. "Along the way, they can have a tip jar or talk about things they endorse. That kind of immersive media starts to build the bridge to what we like to get out of TV, but even better. Those things are on the periphery right now, but I think they are going to take over."

Big players have noticed the potential of virtual sports and are getting into the act. In a striking example of the physical world imitating the digital one, media companies are putting up real-life stadiums where teams compete in video games. Comcast Spectator in March announced that it is building a new $50 million stadium in South Philadelphia that will be the home of the Philadelphia Fusion, the city's e-sports team in the Overwatch League.

E-sports is serious business, with revenues globally - including advertising, sponsorships, and media rights - expected to reach $1.1 billion in 2019, according to gaming industry analytics company Newzoo.

"E-sports is absolutely here to stay," says Fader, "and I think it's a safe bet to say that e-sports will dominate most traditional sports, managing far more revenue and having more impact on our consciousness than baseball."

It's no surprise, then, that Facebook has begun making deals to carry e-sports content. In fact, it is diversification like this that may keep Facebook from ending up like its failed upstart peers. One thing that Facebook has managed to do that MySpace, Friendster, and others didn't, is "a very good job of creating functional integration with the value they are delivering, as opposed to being a place to just share photos or send messages, it serves a lot of diversified functions," says Keith E. Niedermeier, director of Wharton's undergraduate marketing program and an adjunct professor of marketing. "They are creating groups and group connections, but you see them moving into lots of other services like streaming entertainment, mobile payments, and customer-to-customer buying and selling."

"[WeChat] has really instantiated itself as a day-to-day tool in China, and it's clear to me that Facebook would like to emulate that sort of thing."-Keith Niedermeier

In China, WeChat has become the biggest mobile payment platform in the world and it is the platform for many third-party apps for things like bike sharing and ordering airplane tickets. "It has really instantiated itself as a day-to-day tool in China, and it's clear to me that Facebook would like to emulate that sort of thing," says Niedermeier.

Among nascent social media platforms that are particularly promising right now, Yildirim says that "social media platforms which are directed at achieving some objectives with smaller scale and more homogenous people stand a higher chance of entering the market and being able to compete with large, general-purpose platforms such as Facebook and Twitter."
Irreplaceable - and Damaging?
Of course, many have begun to believe that the biggest challenge around the impact of social media may be the way it is changing society. The "attention-grabbing algorithms underlying social media ... propel authoritarian practices that aim to sow confusion, ignorance, prejudice, and chaos, thereby facilitating manipulation and undermining accountability," writes University of Toronto political science professor Ronald Deibert in a January essay in the Journal of Democracy.

Berger notes that any piece of information can now get attention, whether it is true or false. This means more potential for movements both welcome as well as malevolent. "Before, only media companies had reach, so it was harder for false information to spread. It could happen, but it was slow. Now anyone can share anything, and because people tend to believe what they see, false information can spread just as, if not more easily, than the truth.

"It's certainly allowed more things to bubble up rather than flow from the top down," says Berger. Absent gatekeepers, "everyone is their own media company, broadcasting to the particular set of people that follow them. It used to be that a major label signing you was the path to stardom. Now artists can build their own following online and break through that way. Social media has certainly made fame and attention more democratic, though not always in a good way."

Deibert writes that "in a short period of time, digital technologies have become pervasive and deeply embedded in all that we do. Unwinding them completely is neither possible nor desirable."

His cri de coeur argues: that citizens have the right to know what companies and governments are doing with their personal data, and that this right be extended internationally to hold autocratic regimes to account; that companies be barred from selling products and services that enable infringements on human rights and harms to civil society; for the creation of independent agencies with real power to hold social-media platforms to account; and the creation and enforcement of strong antitrust laws to end dominance of a very few social-media companies.

"Social media has certainly made fame and attention more democratic, though not always in a good way."-Jonah Berger

The rising tide of concern is now extending across sectors. The U.S. Justice Department has recently begun an anti-trust investigation into how tech companies operate in social media, search, and retail services. In July, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation announced the award of nearly $50 million in new funding to 11 U.S. universities to research how technology is transforming democracy. The foundation is also soliciting additional grant proposals to fund policy and legal research into the "rules, norms, and governance" that should be applied to social media and technology companies.

Given all of the reasons not to engage with social media - the privacy issues, the slippery-slope addiction aspect of it, its role in spreading incivility - do we want to try to put the genie back in the bottle? Can we? Does social media definitely have a future?

"Yes, surely it does," says Yildirim. "Social connections are fabrics of society. Just as the telegraph or telephone as an innovation of communication did not reduce social connectivity, online social networks did not either. If anything, it likely increased connectivity, or reduced the cost of communicating with others."

It is thanks to online social networks that individuals likely have larger social networks, she says, and while many criticize the fact that we are in touch with large numbers of individuals in a superficial way, these light connections may nevertheless be contributing to our lives when it comes to economic and social outcomes - ranging from finding jobs to meeting new people.

"We are used to being in contact with more individuals, and it is easier to remain in contact with people we only met once. Giving up on this does not seem likely for humans," she says. "The technology with which we keep in touch may change, may evolve, but we will have social connections and platforms which enable them. Facebook may be gone in 10 years, but there will be something else."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Impact of Social Media: Is it Irreplaceable?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Social media as we know it has barely reached its 20th birthday, but it's changed the fabric of everyday life. What does the future hold for the sector and the players currently at the top? ...Read More

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: This article discusses the role of social media in true crimes by using the University of Idaho as a prime example. It describes how platforms such as TikTok have had both a positive and negative impact on this situation. It was helpful how the Moscow Police Department received over 19,000 tips which resulted in an arrest, although there were many cases of false accusations and harassment that was caused by misinformation. The article explains a case of Rebecca Scotfield, who ended up filing a defamation lawsuit against a TikToker, which shows the consequences of unsupported claims. Experts such as David Schmid explain how social media can be helpful during investigations while also explaining its ability to spread harmful misinformation.

Evaluation: This is a popular article because it is intended for a general audience of people who are interested in true crime. It uses credible sources by including statements from law enforcement and academic experts, which builds credibility. The article could have enhanced the credibility by including specific data or peer-reviewed studies about how social media affects investigations.

Response: The article highlights the important need for rules about how people should investigate and behave on social media. Platforms like TikTok and Facebook can quickly share information to many people but they also need to set stronger rules to stop the spread of false information. People are really interested in true crime and this interest could be used for good. Instead of just guessing about cases we should create podcasts that check the facts or work together with the police. Promoting digital skills and critical thinking in users can help reduce the negative impact of false information. Finally providing more resources for victims of misinformation to seek help could reduce the harmful effects of social media rumors in important cases.

# data[].attributes.headline
Scholarly Article on True Crime Documentaries (Soto-Sanfiel and Montoya-Bermúdez):

# data[].attributes.subject
Scholarly Article on True Crime Documentaries (Soto-Sanfiel and Montoya-Bermúdez):

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: This article was written by María T. Soto-Sanfiel and Diego F. Montoya-Bermúdez discusses why some people don’t want to watch True Crime Documentaries (TCDs) in Colombia and Singapore. The study finds that although TCDs are very popular, many people avoid them because they feel upset or worried by the terrifying content. Because Singapore has a very low murder rate, viewers find it hard to relate to the violent stories that are shown in these documentaries. While Columbians live in countries with a very high rate or violence, they avoid TCDs for different reasons. They want to avoid their everyday realities and seem to not like that TCDs glamorize criminals. A quote that I found interesting from this article was, “Columbians know that these things can really happen to us,” showing how their experiences shape their thoughts on TCDs. The article concludes by suggesting that media companies should consider these local differences when televising harsh content.

Evaluation: This article is a scholarly source because it uses research methods and educational language. It was also published in a peer reviewed journal called, “Studies in Documentary Film,” which proves its credibility.

Response: I found this article intriguing because it discusses a topic I haven’t thought about before: why people are against watching TCDs. It explains why people from different backgrounds have different choices about what they watch. An interesting idea from this article is that people with different experiences and cultural backgrounds can change their emotional response to certain types of media. This makes me think about how other types of media that display violence could differently affect viewers based on their background. This source directly relates to my research on how the impact of crime media on its audiences.

# data[].attributes.headline
Scholarly Article on Corporate Crime Reporting (Grenfell Tower Case):

# data[].attributes.subject
Scholarly Article on Corporate Crime Reporting (Grenfell Tower Case):

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: This paper uses three major cases from the UK: the Grenfell Tower fire, the LIBOR manipulation scandal, and the Volkswagen emissions scandal to explain how corporate crime is reported in the media. The article describes how even reliable sources can cause problems like making crimes seem like individual mistakes rather than a systemic problem. The article used a theory by Robert Entman, by analyzing four key elements: who is responsible (the perpetrator), what was the cause, who was harmed (victimization), and what the punishment should be. The results show that while some media representation is helpful, most of it fails to discuss the larger and more important issues behind corporate crime. The paper suggests that there needs to be more research on how corporate crime is portrayed in social media outlets.

Evaluation: This article is a scholarly source because it has strong theories that are backed up with reliable sources. It is published in a peer-reviewed journal, which adds to the credibility of the article. The study takes a thorough look at the topic by combining different fields such as criminology, media studies, and political science.

Response: I found this source informational and helpful for my research because it was about how the media can shape our understanding of corporate crime. The paper explains that many reports miss the larger picture and only focus on individual actions rather than the systems that allow these crimes to happen. I thought it was interesting how the article explains that different media sources display these cases differently, which can change how the public sees them. This brings up questions on how the media can affect accountability for these types of crimes. Because, if the larger companies aren’t held accountable for these crimes then they will continue to commit them. This article connects directly to my research and how the media portrays crime.